An Illinois federal court recently rejected efforts to bring a consumer class action against the parent company of Fiji brand water over allegations that its plastic water bottles contained microplastics. In doing so, the court added its voice to the growing body of case law about microplastics and offered a window into how to attack similar types of contamination allegations.
In Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, 2025 WL 672913 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025) plaintiffs alleged that Fiji’s claim that its water is “natural artesian water” are deceptive because the product bottles contain microplastics. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs brought claims under five state consumer protection laws and sought to represent a class of consumers allegedly harmed by microplastics in the bottles. Id. The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Fiji Water bottles actually contained microplastics and that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief. Id. at *2, *6. Because plaintiffs failed to allege that the water bottles contained microplastics, TWG argued that they could not identify any deceptive statement giving rise to their claims. Id. at *6.
On March 3, the court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for two reasons.
First, the court reasoned that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that Fiji Water bottles contained microplastics. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the limited testing data on which plaintiffs relied to establish microplastic contamination. The data plaintiffs cited either “involve[d] other brands of water, not Fiji Water” or was a “less than definitive” study about potential microplastic contamination from twisting a bottle’s lid. Id. Allowing plaintiffs’ claims to proceed on such thin allegations “would basically open the door to enabling any purchaser of any consumable product to file a lawsuit simply saying, ‘I bought product X, and it contains microplastics’ (or ‘forever’ chemicals, or heavy metals, or whatever) and thereby get past a motion to dismiss and into discovery and class certification proceedings.” Id. at *7. “[P]lausibility requires more,” the court held. Id.
Second, the court agreed that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. To have standing, the Court held that plaintiffs must identify a “real and immediate threat that plaintiffs will be harmed again by [the company’s] conduct.” Id. Because plaintiffs now know that Fiji Water bottles allegedly contains microplastics, “there is little doubt that they will not be harmed again in the future.” Id.
The Daly decision identifies potential avenues to attack similar claims. These include closely focusing on the allegations tying the product at issue to potential contaminants. For example, testing allegations involving products other than the one at issue may be insufficient. In addition, where plaintiffs are already aware of alleged contamination issues, Daly supports an argument that plaintiffs no longer have standing to pursue injunctive relief.